(PR) Logitech G, a brand of Logitech and a leading innovator in gaming technology, today announced a partnership with Airdrop Gaming , a pioneering technology company specializing in accessible gaming solutions. Airdrop Gaming’s new Audio Radar solution enables deaf and hard of hearing gamers to “see the sound” by visualizing directional audio events in games. As a part of the partnership, Logitech G will sell the Audio Radar solution on its website at www.logitechg.com.
Airdrop Gaming is the first partner in Logitech’s new Start-Up for Good initiative, a pilot program dedicated to helping companies that are creating positive social impact bring their solutions to market. As part of the program, Airdrop Gaming leveraged Logitech’s mentorship, resources, and global platform to accelerate the development of its groundbreaking Audio Radar visual sound solution for the deaf and hard of hearing community.
“Partnering with Logitech G represents a significant step toward reshaping the gaming landscape for players who are deaf and hard of hearing,” said Timothy Murphy, CEO of Airdrop Gaming. “Their expertise and dedication to innovation helped us elevate our technology and expand our reach to more gamers.”
The patented Audio Radar system translates in-game audio events, such as footsteps or directional gunfire, into visual cues with six high-performance RGBW LED light bars, allowing you to see the direction of sounds. This technology enables players who are deaf and hard of hearing to engage with games on an even playing field. Logitech G, renowned for its high-performance gaming gear, shares Airdrop Gaming’s commitment to making gaming accessible to everyone.
“Gaming is at its best when it’s inclusive,” said Ujesh Desai, General Manager of Logitech G. “Our partnership with Airdrop Gaming aligns with our mission to empower all gamers with gear that lets them perform at their highest level. I love the Audio Radar solution and what it provides.”
Join the discussion in The FPS Review Forums...
Discussion (17 replies)
Join Discussion →
Watched the video in the linked article. I am all for this. Would be nice for smart glasses to offer a similar function for the deaf as well.
This right here is why I no longer play multiplayer games.
20 years ago we would call this hacking, and you would get banned.
"Zarathustra, post: 92012, member: 203" wrote:This right here is why I no longer play multiplayer games.
20 years ago we would call this hacking, and you would get banned.
Yea you are right for the non hearing impaired this IS hacking and it will be used in that way. BUT... it seems it would be easy enough via software to disable the lights if you have functional sound. Then it's either no sound and lights or no lights and sound.
"Zarathustra, post: 92012, member: 203" wrote:This right here is why I no longer play multiplayer games.
20 years ago we would call this hacking, and you would get banned.
Not saying this can't be abused and used for the wrong reasons, but this is supposed to be used by the deaf or the hard-of-hearing.
"Grimlakin, post: 92018, member: 215" wrote:Yea you are right for the non hearing impaired this IS hacking and it will be used in that way. BUT... it seems it would be easy enough via software to disable the lights if you have functional sound. Then it's either no sound and lights or no lights and sound.
"DrezKill, post: 92027, member: 230" wrote:Not saying this can't be abused and used for the wrong reasons, but this is supposed to be used by the deaf or the hard-of-hearing.
Yeah., but leaving it up to the choice of the user, there is no way to police it.
I understand that it is designed for the hard of hearing, but should the hard of hearing really have an unfair advantage in game?
"Zarathustra, post: 92040, member: 203" wrote:Yeah., but leaving it up to the choice of the user, there is no way to police it.
I understand that it is designed for the hard of hearing, but should the hard of hearing really have an unfair advantage in game?
Wait what? Unfair? If they can't use audio queues like hearing people can wouldn't it make sense that audio using players have an unfair advantage over them? This is ostinsibly using the same.software that does positional audio just adding a visual queue to it.
How this is cheating for those that can't use audio is beyond my comprehension.
"Grimlakin, post: 92044, member: 215" wrote:Wait what? Unfair? If they can't use audio queues like hearing people can wouldn't it make sense that audio using players have an unfair advantage over them? This is ostinsibly using the same.software that does positional audio just adding a visual queue to it.
How this is cheating for those that can't use audio is beyond my comprehension.
Visual queues are more precise location-wise than audio queues, so if you have them they are an unrealistic and unfair advantage.
I feel for people with hearing difficulties, I really do, but this kind of "assistive technology" provides an unrealistic and unfair advantage to people using it and has the potential of ruining the game for everyone else.
"Zarathustra, post: 92060, member: 203" wrote:I feel for people with hearing difficulties, I really do, but this kind of "assistive technology" provides an unrealistic and unfair advantage to people using it and has the potential of ruining the game for everyone else.
Nah - you have the option of using it as well. You are just choosing not to for whatever reason. Not unfair at all.
"Zarathustra, post: 92060, member: 203" wrote:Visual queues are more precise location-wise than audio queues, so if you have them they are an unrealistic and unfair advantage.
I feel for people with hearing difficulties, I really do, but this kind of "assistive technology" provides an unrealistic and unfair advantage to people using it and has the potential of ruining the game for everyone else.
I'll have go agree to disagree here. Depending on implementation I think it will be about the same. But only time will tell.
"Brian_B, post: 92080, member: 96" wrote:Nah - you have the option of using it as well. You are just choosing not to for whatever reason. Not unfair at all.
I'm choosing because I don't want to ruin the game with unrealistic visual queues.
If there were an option to limit such visual queues to games where others are also using those visual queues I wouldn't have a problem with them, but having these game ruining visual cues make their way into every game just because people are worrying that they will be at a disadvantage if others are using them, just ruins all of gaming.
"Zarathustra, post: 92060, member: 203" wrote:Visual queues are more precise location-wise than audio queues, so if you have them they are an unrealistic and unfair advantage.
They are not, or not completely, for one you have to look at them, taking your focus or part of it away from the game (see how well people can text and drive) while audio you just hhear it (that's why you can use hands free kits).
Also a lot of games already have some visual queue's to where you are beeing shot from
Autoaim on control pads seems worse then this
Sensory cues in games, more often than not, are intended to be distractions ... except when they're required by (poor or inconsiderate) design for certain tasks. Visual or hearing impaired people don't have the option to use both sound and lights. For them, it's either substituting light for sound (or vice-versa) or nothing at all.
It's a bit disingenuous and egocentric for an able-bodied person to cry foul about allowing non-able-bodied people to use assistive devices - to experience enjoyment of the media - especially when the technology is available and intended to be inclusive when it's absence is exclusive. Using the same logic extolled above, I suppose it's unfair that visually impaired people get white canes and service animals, and hearing disabled people get TTY communications and flashing lights instead of doorbells, just so they can reasonably attempt to independently function in society - never mind attempting to enjoy the same things able-bodied people do.
For an exercise in empathy, try playing one of your favorite fast twitch-based first-person shooters without sound at all. Completely disable all sound ... unplug the speakers or disable them in software ... and then see just how successful or competitive you are with only onscreen cues. Now imagine you are forced to play that way competitively against other players who can use sound every time. Kind of sucks, doesn't it? Your choices are to not play at all or to play with an assistive device if one is available. Wouldn't you rather share the joy you experience while gaming instead of shutting others out?
"Ditchinit, post: 92117, member: 4253" wrote:Sensory cues in games, more often than not, are intended to be distractions ... except when they're required by (poor or inconsiderate) design for certain tasks. Visual or hearing impaired people don't have the option to use both sound and lights. For them, it's either substituting light for sound (or vice-versa) or nothing at all.
It's a bit disingenuous and egocentric for an able-bodied person to cry foul about allowing non-able-bodied people to use assistive devices - to experience enjoyment of the media - especially when the technology is available and intended to be inclusive when it's absence is exclusive. Using the same logic extolled above, I suppose it's unfair that visually impaired people get white canes and service animals, and hearing disabled people get TTY communications and flashing lights instead of doorbells, just so they can reasonably attempt to independently function in society - never mind attempting to enjoy the same things able-bodied people do.
For an exercise in empathy, try playing one of your favorite fast twitch-based first-person shooters without sound at all. Completely disable all sound ... unplug the speakers or disable them in software ... and then see just how successful or competitive you are with only onscreen cues. Now imagine you are forced to play that way competitively against other players who can use sound every time. Kind of sucks, doesn't it? Your choices are to not play at all or to play with an assistive device if one is available. Wouldn't you rather share the joy you experience while gaming instead of shutting others out?
I'm all for assistive technologies that help those with disabilities, but not at the expense of ruining all multiplayer games. That sacrifice is just too high. (...and I don't even play multiplayer games anymore, in large part because of streamers and hackers)
This very much is in the same vein as cheating at a multiplayer game, especially, but not only if used by those who don't need it.
I'd really like there to be ways for those with disabilities to enjoy life, hobbies, games and other things as much as possible, but if I am forced to make that choice, then I'm afraid it is going to be rather one sided.
Mark me down as sympathetic, but opposed to the cost in this instance.
You simply can't make everything fair or better for those with disabilities. It isn't possible. A person with a disability simply won't be able to do all of the things a person without one can, and no one can change that. There is - for instance - a reason we don't issue drivers licenses to the blind or hire blind bus drivers.
By all means, add assistive technologies everywhere it is possible, as long as those assistive technologies are not harmful to the 99.6% to 99.8% of people (in this case) who don't need them. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or "ablist" but that's where I stand, and my mind will not be changed on this issue.
People can't expect the world to change for them, regardless of their circumstances. And they especially can not expect this when it ruins things the world cares about.
"Zarathustra, post: 92119, member: 203" wrote:I'm all for assistive technologies that help those with disabilities, but not at the expense of ruining all multiplayer games. That sacrifice is just too high.
That's a bit hyperbolic don't you think? Enabling some people to experience gaming who couldn't before, or to enhance their previously marginal experience, will somehow ruin all multiplayer games? Really?
"Zarathustra, post: 92119, member: 203" wrote:This very much is in the same vein as cheating at a multiplayer game, especially, but not only if used by those who don't need it.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that people who do not need the assistive device will use and be unfairly assisted by the device to the detriment of those who do not use the device? On the contrary, I suspect the use of this device will not enhance game play for able-bodied people; the extra sensory input will be more distracting. Sensory overload is real and is purposefully designed into many games ... that is, unless you're a Pinball Wizard (... there has to be a twist ...), but I digress.
A player having decent hearing ability should be able to distinguish whether the positional sound from behind them is something relatively safe such as a bird chirping, something imminently concerning such as footsteps, or something potentially dangerous such as the racking of ammunition in a firearm. A hearing impaired person with this assistive device will only see a light indicating that a sound occurred behind them. That doesn't seem to be equivalent by any stretch of the imagination.
"Zarathustra, post: 92119, member: 203" wrote:I'd really like there to be ways for those with disabilities to enjoy life, hobbies, games and other things as much as possible, but if I am forced to make that choice, then I'm afraid it is going to be rather one sided.
How wonderfully interesting it is that you believe you get to make that choice. Maybe for you, yes, but for others? Absolutely not. This seems to be a case of "F*ck you, I got mine!"
"Zarathustra, post: 92119, member: 203" wrote:You simply can't make everything fair or better for those with disabilities. It isn't possible. A person with a disability simply won't be able to do all of the things a person without one can, and no one can change that. There is - for instance - a reason we don't issue drivers licenses to the blind or hire blind bus drivers.
By all means, add assistive technologies everywhere it is possible, as long as those assistive technologies are not harmful to the 99.6% to 99.8% of people (in this case) who don't need them. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or "ablist" but that's where I stand, and my mind will not be changed on this issue.
People can't expect the world to change for them, regardless of their circumstances. And they especially can not expect this when it ruins things the world cares about.
And this is where we agree to disagree. I'll agree that you cannot make complete equivalence for disabled people, but you can make their situation better, and you can enable them to have opportunity to participate on a more equal footing. If you shoot for perfection, you will never achieve your goal. But you can accomplish many great things by not limiting yourself with absolutist terms.
"Zarathustra, post: 92119, member: 203" wrote:I'm all for assistive technologies that help those with disabilities, but not at the expense of ruining all multiplayer games. That sacrifice is just too high.
Wait, really?
Discussion (17 replies)
Join Discussion →Watched the video in the linked article. I am all for this. Would be nice for smart glasses to offer a similar function for the deaf as well.
This right here is why I no longer play multiplayer games.
20 years ago we would call this hacking, and you would get banned.
Yea you are right for the non hearing impaired this IS hacking and it will be used in that way. BUT... it seems it would be easy enough via software to disable the lights if you have functional sound. Then it's either no sound and lights or no lights and sound.
Not saying this can't be abused and used for the wrong reasons, but this is supposed to be used by the deaf or the hard-of-hearing.
Yeah., but leaving it up to the choice of the user, there is no way to police it.
I understand that it is designed for the hard of hearing, but should the hard of hearing really have an unfair advantage in game?
Wait what? Unfair? If they can't use audio queues like hearing people can wouldn't it make sense that audio using players have an unfair advantage over them? This is ostinsibly using the same.software that does positional audio just adding a visual queue to it.
How this is cheating for those that can't use audio is beyond my comprehension.
Visual queues are more precise location-wise than audio queues, so if you have them they are an unrealistic and unfair advantage.
I feel for people with hearing difficulties, I really do, but this kind of "assistive technology" provides an unrealistic and unfair advantage to people using it and has the potential of ruining the game for everyone else.
Nah - you have the option of using it as well. You are just choosing not to for whatever reason. Not unfair at all.
I'll have go agree to disagree here. Depending on implementation I think it will be about the same. But only time will tell.
I'm choosing because I don't want to ruin the game with unrealistic visual queues.
If there were an option to limit such visual queues to games where others are also using those visual queues I wouldn't have a problem with them, but having these game ruining visual cues make their way into every game just because people are worrying that they will be at a disadvantage if others are using them, just ruins all of gaming.
They are not, or not completely, for one you have to look at them, taking your focus or part of it away from the game (see how well people can text and drive) while audio you just hhear it (that's why you can use hands free kits).
Also a lot of games already have some visual queue's to where you are beeing shot from
Autoaim on control pads seems worse then this
Sensory cues in games, more often than not, are intended to be distractions ... except when they're required by (poor or inconsiderate) design for certain tasks. Visual or hearing impaired people don't have the option to use both sound and lights. For them, it's either substituting light for sound (or vice-versa) or nothing at all.
It's a bit disingenuous and egocentric for an able-bodied person to cry foul about allowing non-able-bodied people to use assistive devices - to experience enjoyment of the media - especially when the technology is available and intended to be inclusive when it's absence is exclusive. Using the same logic extolled above, I suppose it's unfair that visually impaired people get white canes and service animals, and hearing disabled people get TTY communications and flashing lights instead of doorbells, just so they can reasonably attempt to independently function in society - never mind attempting to enjoy the same things able-bodied people do.
For an exercise in empathy, try playing one of your favorite fast twitch-based first-person shooters without sound at all. Completely disable all sound ... unplug the speakers or disable them in software ... and then see just how successful or competitive you are with only onscreen cues. Now imagine you are forced to play that way competitively against other players who can use sound every time. Kind of sucks, doesn't it? Your choices are to not play at all or to play with an assistive device if one is available. Wouldn't you rather share the joy you experience while gaming instead of shutting others out?
I'm all for assistive technologies that help those with disabilities, but not at the expense of ruining all multiplayer games. That sacrifice is just too high. (...and I don't even play multiplayer games anymore, in large part because of streamers and hackers)
This very much is in the same vein as cheating at a multiplayer game, especially, but not only if used by those who don't need it.
I'd really like there to be ways for those with disabilities to enjoy life, hobbies, games and other things as much as possible, but if I am forced to make that choice, then I'm afraid it is going to be rather one sided.
Mark me down as sympathetic, but opposed to the cost in this instance.
You simply can't make everything fair or better for those with disabilities. It isn't possible. A person with a disability simply won't be able to do all of the things a person without one can, and no one can change that. There is - for instance - a reason we don't issue drivers licenses to the blind or hire blind bus drivers.
By all means, add assistive technologies everywhere it is possible, as long as those assistive technologies are not harmful to the 99.6% to 99.8% of people (in this case) who don't need them. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or "ablist" but that's where I stand, and my mind will not be changed on this issue.
People can't expect the world to change for them, regardless of their circumstances. And they especially can not expect this when it ruins things the world cares about.
That's a bit hyperbolic don't you think? Enabling some people to experience gaming who couldn't before, or to enhance their previously marginal experience, will somehow ruin all multiplayer games? Really?
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that people who do not need the assistive device will use and be unfairly assisted by the device to the detriment of those who do not use the device? On the contrary, I suspect the use of this device will not enhance game play for able-bodied people; the extra sensory input will be more distracting. Sensory overload is real and is purposefully designed into many games ... that is, unless you're a Pinball Wizard (... there has to be a twist ...), but I digress.
A player having decent hearing ability should be able to distinguish whether the positional sound from behind them is something relatively safe such as a bird chirping, something imminently concerning such as footsteps, or something potentially dangerous such as the racking of ammunition in a firearm. A hearing impaired person with this assistive device will only see a light indicating that a sound occurred behind them. That doesn't seem to be equivalent by any stretch of the imagination.
How wonderfully interesting it is that you believe you get to make that choice. Maybe for you, yes, but for others? Absolutely not. This seems to be a case of "F*ck you, I got mine!"
And this is where we agree to disagree. I'll agree that you cannot make complete equivalence for disabled people, but you can make their situation better, and you can enable them to have opportunity to participate on a more equal footing. If you shoot for perfection, you will never achieve your goal. But you can accomplish many great things by not limiting yourself with absolutist terms.
Wait, really?